Urban Sanitation in Gujarat. Policy Approach and Programs by the State Government

Transcription

1 Urban Sanitation in Gujarat Policy Approach and Programs by the State Government Urban Management Centre, Ahmedabad 2015

2 Acknowledgements The Urban Management Centre, a non-profit organization is working in urban sanitation space in Gujarat India and in South Asia since Over these years the staff and the organization has been activity involved in research and on issues of professionalizing urban management and improving water-sanitation-health services. With a lean team of 20 professionals, mostly from urban planning, management and architecture backgrounds, we have provided handholding support cities to map issues and improve such services. I would like to thank the Centre for Policy Research and especially Shubhagato Dasgupta who persuaded us write the paper. I would like to thank my team members Meghna Malhotra, Vanishree Herlekar, Arvind Singh, Vinay Patel who supported the research and writing this paper. Manvita Baradi April

3 Table of Contents Abbreviations... 5 Background... 6 Outline and Methodology Evolution of Urban Sanitation Policy and Programs in India Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme (ILCS), Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM), National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP), Service Level Benchmarks for Water and Sanitation, Ratings of Cities, Advisory Note on Septage Management in Urban India, Swachh Bharat Mission, Sanitation in Urban Gujarat: Comparison with Other States Urbanization and Demographics Slum Population Access to Drinking Water Access to Adequate Sanitation Summary Institutional Arrangements for Urban Sanitation in Gujarat Urban Local Bodies State Level Institutions and Parastatal Agencies Gujarat Municipal Finance Board Gujarat Urban Development Mission Gujarat Urban Development Company Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board Gujarat Pollution Control Board Policy and Financing Approach Overall Approach and Programs for Increasing Toilet Coverage

4 Evolution of the Nirmal Gujarat Vyaktigat Shauchalaya Yojana Nirmal Gujarat Pay and Use Toilet Scheme Approach towards Wastewater Collection, Conveyance &Treatment SJMMSVY: Implementation Framework Monitoring Framework of State Government Leading Practices by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Slum Networking Program NOC Scheme Initiatives under the MGSM Prospects for Policy Reform Devolving Powers to ULBs Adopting an Integrated, Service Delivery Approach to Sanitation Encouraging Demand-led Schemes for Constructing Individual Toilets Initiating Performance Monitoring and Performance Based Incentives Conclusion Bibliography

5 List of Tables Table 1 Service level benchmarks for water supply in cities: by MoUD Table 2 Grades of reliability of data produced for KPIs Table 3 Urbanization in Gujarat and peer states Table 4 Distribution of urban population in Gujarat Table 5 Per Capita Net State Domestic Product: Gujarat and peer states Table 6 Per cent growth in per capita net state domestic product Table 7 Slum population in Gujarat and peer states Table 8Piped water supply within premises in urban households: Gujarat and peer states Table 9Piped water supply within premises in slum households: Gujarat and peer states Table 10 Urban households with individual toilets: Gujarat and peer states Table 11 Slum households with individual toilets Table 12 Sewage generation and treatment in class I and II cities Table 13 The sanitation value chain: Roles of ULB and State Government Table 14 Specifications for super and sub structure for toilets under NGSY Table 15 Implementation status of UGD and STP under SJMMSVY ( ) List of Figures Figure 1 Initiatives in urban sanitation in India: a timeline Figure 2 Investments under JNNURM Figure 4 Access to drinking water in Gujarat and peer states Figure 5Urban households in Gujarat with access to piped water within premise by city Figure 6 Access to sanitation facilities: Gujarat and peer states Figure 7Urban households in Gujarat with individual toilets by city Figure 8 Percentage of urban households defecating in the open by State Figure 9 Open defecation among slum households Figure 10Urban households in Gujarat connected to waste water disposal systems by city Figure 11 Comparison of sewage treatment capacities in class I and II cities by state Figure 12 State Departments & Parastatal Agencies in Urban Sanitation Figure 13 Evolution of programs for toilet provision in Gujarat Figure 14 Trends in construction of individual toilets in Gujarat

6 Abbreviations BPMC BSUP CAA CDP CEO CPCB CPHEEO CSS DPR GDP GERRP GMA GMFB GoG GR GUDC GUDM GWSSB HPEC IDSMT IHSDP ILCS JNNURM MoHUPA MoUD O&M PAS SJMSVY SLB STP SWM UD&HD UIDSSMT ULB ULCS Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act Basic Services for Urban Poor Constitutional Amendment Act City Development Plan Chief Executive Officer Central Pollution Control Board Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization Centrally Sponsored Scheme Detailed Project Report Gross Domestic Product Gujarat Earthquake Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Project Gujarat Municipalities Act Gujarat Municipal Finance Board Government of Gujarat Government Resolution Gujarat Urban Development Company Ltd Gujarat Urban Development Mission Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board High Powered Expert Committee Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns Integrated Housing and Slum Development Program Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation Ministry of Urban Development Operation and Maintenance Performance Assessment System Swarnim Jayanti Mukhya Mantri Shehri Vikas Yojana Service Level Benchmark Sewage Treatment Plant Solid Waste Management Urban Development and Housing Department Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns Urban Local Body Urban Low Cost Sanitation 5

7 Background In 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) posed a provocative question for public health (M., 2006): Why do we keep treating people for illnesses only to send them back to the conditions that created illness in the first place i? The conditions in the above statement implies the urban setting, especially the urban poor settlements very often characterized by lack of adequate water and sanitation services, unhygienic conditions, poor housing and overcrowding. Sanitation or the safe management of human excreta, including its safe confinement, treatment, and disposal is a key determinant of health. Impact of poor sanitation on public health in India is huge. According to Census 2011, nearly 12 % or 95 Lakh urban households in India do not have access to toilets and defecate in the open exposing infants and young children to faecally transmitted infections (FTIs). According to a study by the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD), Government of India, 23 million children in urban India are at a risk of diseases due to poor sanitation 1. A recent research study published by the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) of the World has also attributed the practice of open defecation to excess stunting in Indian Children (Spears, 2013). Similarly improper treatment and disposal of waste water also poses tremendous health and environmental risks. As per the National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP), discharge of untreated domestic/municipal waste water has resulted in contamination of 75 percent of all surface water across India. Yet, sanitation in urban India has been accorded a low priority, until recently. Beginning 2005, there has been an impetus at the national and state levels to address the worsening urban sanitation situation. However, so far most sanitation initiatives in the urban sector have been piecemeal and largely focused on infrastructure development. The Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA) for rural areas (previously called Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC)), now part of Swachh Bharat Mission, focuses on provision and use of toilets and allows for a comprehensive, demand-driven, people-centered approach for addressing sanitation. A similar national level program- Swachh Bharat Mission for urban sanitation addressing the full service chain of sanitation including provision of individual toilets, proper collection, storage, conveyance, and treatment and finally the disposal/ reuse of waste water has been set up 1 Quoted in Workshop on Urban Infrastructure and Service Delivery with Dr. Isher Judge Ahluwalia 6

8 This paper briefly outlines the evolution of urban sanitation programs and policies in India in the last few decades and then, examines in detail, the approach, policies and programs adopted by the Government of Gujarat with a vision of achieving total sanitation in the State. Outline and Methodology Rural sanitation in India has received significantly more attention and investment as compared to urban sanitation because of the sheer magnitude of the problem. As per Census 2011, 67.3% of all rural households defecate in the open. The situation in urban areas is not as critical in terms of scale; however the impact of inadequate sanitation on public health and environment is more serious and threatening, given the high population densities and congested built environments, especially in slum areas. Yet urban sanitation remained a neglected development priority for a long time. The NUSP launched by the Ministry of Urban Development (MOUD) in 2008 is the first comprehensive policy document that calls attention to urban sanitation as distinct from rural sanitation, requiring considerably more focus on service delivery management and convergence among different state and city level institutions. According to the constitution of India, sanitation policy is a state subject; however the provision of basic infrastructure and services lies in the domain of urban local bodies (ULBs). As per the Gujarat Municipal Corporation Act and the Gujarat Municipalities Act, all ULBs in Gujarat are responsible for providing water and sanitation services to the citizens. While the routine operations and maintenance of these services is done by the ULBs, new infrastructure projects (laying of new pipelines for water and drainage, construction of sewage treatment plants etc.) in most cities are directly undertaken by State level parastatal agencies under the aegis of the Urban Development and Housing Department through various programs and schemes. The paper reviews these schemes with respect to their investments and outcomes, delivery mechanisms and identifies prospects for further policy reform in the State. Section 1 sets the context for the paper and briefly outlines the evolution of urban policy in India, specifically the initiatives and programs addressing sanitation. Section 2 presents current status of urban sanitation in Gujarat in comparison to the country and other states with similar urbanization trends, and demographic and socio-economic profiles. Section 3 looks at the governance structures and institutional arrangements for delivery of sanitation services in the State and finally sections 4 and 5 look at the various programs undertaken by Govt. of Gujarat to improve urban sanitation, their outcomes and impact and applicability and scalability to other States in India. The paper is based on the author s extensive experience working on urban water and sanitation in Gujarat and discussions with experts and stakeholder agencies in Gujarat. Assessment of existing 7

9 situation of urban sanitation in Gujarat and comparative states is done using information from the Census of India and the service level benchmarks (SLB) of the MoUD. The SLB indicators of Gujarat are compiled and analyzed under the Performance Assessment System (PAS), a seven year action research program of the CEPT University and the Urban Management Centre(UMC) and the data regarding various Government of Gujarat schemes including fund allocation, disbursement, targets and outcomes has been sourced from the Gujarat Municipal Finance Board. 1. Evolution of Urban Sanitation Policy and Programs in India After independence, urban policy and development in India has been guided by the Central Government, through the national five year plans (FYP) formulated by the Planning Commission. Sanitation was included as an agenda item in Government of India s first five year plan ( ), but the focus of the Central Government in the fifties was largely on housing and redevelopment of slums, which were viewed as eyesores and a disgrace to the country. The slum (clearance and improvement) act was thus formulated in The decade after independence also saw emergence of urban focused institutions such as the Ministry of Works and Housing (1952), The National Buildings Organization (1954) and The Town Planning Organization (TPO) (1955). Urban policy in India began taking a more concrete shape in the sixties and seventies. There was a huge focus on promoting planned development of cities through the implementation of master plans, coupled with measures such as freezing of land prices, acquisition and development of land and taxation of vacant land, to control and regulate urban land. ii During eighties, the focus of Central Government shift from urban policy to infrastructure development, especially in small towns and cities of India. The results from Census of India, 1981 revealed that 23.3%of the total population now lived in urban areas and there were 2681 towns and urban agglomerations in India with a population between 10,000 and 1 Lakh (Batra, 2009). Most small towns were characterized by lack of infrastructure, planning and unimproved sanitation facilities. Several households were dependent on service latrines or dry latrines which required the night soil to be removed manually. Recognizing the need to focus on development of small towns, the Central Government launched the Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns (IDSMT), a centrally sponsored scheme with the objective of promoting growth in towns with population less than 1 Lakh in IDSMT included acquisition and services, construction of new markets, provision of industrial estates, provision of basic services, development of rural hinterlands and low cost sanitation. In 1985, the Ministry of Works was renamed as the Ministry of Urban Development with a policy mandate to focus on urban issues. 8

10 During late 80 s, the Indian economy started to liberalize and the role of Government was seen more in terms of providing enabling environments and mobilizing resources. During this time the link between urban growth and economic development was well established and private sector participation in urban development began to be encouraged. The national policy also promulgated a decentralized decision making process to empower cities and towns to undertake planning activities and service provision on their own while safeguarding local concerns and issues. In 1992, the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act was passed. The landmark legislation recognized the cities and towns as the third tier of government through the constitution of urban local bodies (ULBs). The twelfth schedule was introduced that devolved eighteen essential functions related to city planning and service provision to these ULBs. Another key development during the early 90s was the publication of the India Infrastructure Report (IRR) which highlighted the need for large scale investments in urban infrastructure and advocated for privatization and innovative forms of financing to fund the investments. After the publication of IRR, Infrastructure creation and augmentation became the most important urban agenda of Central as well as State Governments which was also reflected in the formulation of sanitation programs. Most national initiatives in the realm of urban sanitation in the last three decades have largely focused on infrastructure creation such as funding of individual toilets and sewage network. At the national level, the infrastructure driven approach started moving towards a holistic, integrated, people centered approach with the release of the National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP) in 2005.The following section provides an overview of specific urban sanitation programs and initiatives spearheaded by the Central Government in the last years. 9

11 Integrated Employment JNNURM National National Prohibition of Swachh low cost of Manual Upgradation Urban Sanitation Employment Bharat sanitation Scavengers of sanitation Sanitation Rating of as Manual Mission scheme to and facilities in Policy cities (NUSP) Scavengers convert dry Construction select slums and their latrines to pour flush latrines of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 under BSUP and IHSDP Service Level Benchmarks for water & sanitation Rehabilitation Act, 2013 Advisory note on septage management in India Acts & Legislations Policy and Directives Performance Assessment Funded Programs for infrastructure creation Figure 1 Initiatives in urban sanitation in India: a timeline 1.1. Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme (ILCS), 1981 The integrated low cost sanitation scheme (ILCS) launched in 1981, was the first centrally sponsored scheme addressing the issue of sanitation in our cities. ILCS aimed at eliminating manual scavenging by converting manually serviced dry latrines into low cost water seal twin-pit sanitary latrines. The scheme was open for all urban households in towns with population of less than 5 lakh. The scheme was first offered through the Ministry of Home Affairs and later through Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment.Till 2007 the scheme was operated by providing a mix of subsidy from the Central Government and, a loan from the HUDCO and a contribution from the beneficiaries. The scheme only provided a subsidy for improving the waste water disposal system and converting dry pits into the two leach pit system. The guidelines for the scheme were revised in 2008 when it was under the administration of the Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA). The subsidy now included the construction of covered sanitary two pit pour flush latrines along with superstructures in place of dry latrines and also construction of new toilets in households which did not have an existing facility. The scheme was limited to households belonging to the economically weaker sections (EWS). The Govt. of India contributed 75% of the total cost of the toilet (Maximum Rs. 10,000), the state governments contributed 15% and the beneficiaries contributed 10% towards the total construction 10

12 cost. The loan component was removed from the scheme.75% of the subsidy provided to a city/ town was earmarked for conversion of dry latrines to sanitary toilets and 25% for provision of pour flush latrines to beneficiaries having no latrines. The ILCS scheme is currently operational as per the revised guidelines. Govt. of Gujarat has not made any proposal to MoHUPA under the revised guidelines of ILCS and hence has not been sanctioned any funds under the program (Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, 2014). 10 years after the launch of the scheme, the Govt. of India passed the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 which prohibited construction and usage of dry latrines and the practice of manual scavenging to service these dry latrines.the prohibition of employment of manual scavengers and their rehabilitation act, 2013, as the name suggests, extends to rehabilitation of manual scavengers. It is an offence under the Act to construct, or maintain a dry/insanitary latrine in premises. Further, it makes it obligatory for the state government to rehabilitate individuals according to the provisions laid down in the act, by the GoI. However, there are over 12,000 manual scavengers in Gujarat; quoting from a Tata Institute of Social Studies (TISS) (Kapoor 2007) study. This study included places only with populations greater than 10,000. Another study by Navsarjan Trust, before 2006, had reported a much greater number of over 64,000, of which over 11,000 scavengers were rehabilitated by the GoG (Khurana and Ojha 2009) Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM), 2005 From 1981 till 2000s, Central Government s approach towards urban sanitation was focused on fostering the construction of sanitary latrines, eradicating manual scavenging and slum improvement. In 2005, the central Government launched the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM) a massive urban renewal program targeting integrated development of urban infrastructure in 63 identified cities. The funds are provided in the form of grants to the states in the form of additional central assistance (ACA). Though the focus of the scheme was infrastructure creation, the disbursement of central funds was linked to implementation of reforms to improve governance and service delivery in ULBs. Mandatory governance reforms included Internal earmarking, within local bodies, budgets for basic services to the urban poor, levy of reasonable user charges by ULBs with the objective of improving cost recovery for O&M among others. The JNNURM also mandated the preparation of City Development Plans (CDP) which was expected to be an integrated city plan linking land use, public transport, housing and provision of basic services. However with limited capacity among city governments and no statutory framework backing the plan, the CDP became merely a report put together by 11

13 consultants as a requirement to access funds under the mission. The CDPs prepared by most city governments often supported standalone projects with almost no linkages to the integrated, statutory master plans of the cities. The mission funded major infrastructure projects relating to water supply, sanitation, solid waste management, urban transport and revitalization of inner city areas. One of the sub-missions of the JNNURM called Basic Services to Urban Poor (BSUP), focused on integrated development of slums through implementing projects for providing shelter, basic services and other civic amenities. While the intent of the BSUP program was to extend basic services into existing slums to improve their sanitary condition, this intent was lost in the actual implementation of the program. The BSUP program was available for 63 cities identified in the mission. Most cities which received grant under the BSUP program, used the funds to displace the slums from inner city areas and build new resettlement housing, generally in the outskirts of the cities (MoUD, 2014). Also the program supported piecemeal improvements in select slums and did not promote holistic vision of improving sanitation in cities. 27 projects were sanctioned under the BSUP program in Gujarat, all of which focused on construction of new dwelling units for slum residents. A total of 1,13,488 dwelling units were sanctioned under these projects, out of which 88,866 are completed (Aloria, 2013) There were two components in JNNURM that focused on improving sanitation (and other) infrastructure in small towns and cities that were not included as part of the 63 identified cities. These include the Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small & Medium Towns (UIDSSMT) and Integrated Housing and Slum Development Program (IHSDP) which also focused on creating new housing units for slum dwellers in these towns. The UIDSSMT launched in December 2005, with an aim of enhancing public and private investments in infrastructure development in towns and cities. The scheme has subsumed the schemes of Integrated Development of small and Medium Towns (IDSMT) and Accelerated Urban Water Supply Program (AUWSP). As of April 2014, projects worth 14,000 Crore have been approved and completed under JNNURM. Investments amounting to 2000 Crore (16% of the total amount) have been made in the sanitation sector in the last 9 years. All funds allocated to the sanitation sector were spent on underground sewerage projects (Ministry of Urban Development, GoI, 2014). 12

14 Investments in various sectors under JNNURM 0.3% 0.3% 14.9% 4.1% 27.2% 15.8% 37.4% Drainage and storm water drains Solid waste management Water supply Sewerage Roads and transport Development of heritage areas Urban renewal Figure 2 Investments under JNNURM The JNNURM has been successful in providing an overall impetus to urban development in India. The mission attempted to focus on issues such as water supply, sanitation and transport critical for holistic development of cities, but the program s implementation on the ground fell short of being integrated and holistic National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP), 2008 The National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP) released by MoUD in 2008 was the first concrete step towards promoting a holistic view on urban sanitation. With a vision of realizing totally sanitized, healthy and livable cities and towns, and ensuring and sustaining good public health and environment, the policy sets forward specific goals towards achieving open defecation free cities, planning and implementing integrated city-wide sanitation infrastructure, generating awareness about sanitation and its linkages with public health and promoting adoption of healthy sanitation practices. The policy encourages preparation of state level strategies and city level sanitation plans by State Governments and ULBs to achieve these policy goals. The NUSP emphasizes the role of ULBs in ensuring sustainable sanitation services delivery, and directs States to make concerted efforts to devolve powers, roles and responsibilities along with financial resources necessary for ULBs to discharge their functions. The policy moves away from prescribing piecemeal infrastructure solutions such as construction of toilets or sewage treatments plants (STPs) towards planning and implementing measures related to sanitation in various sectors and departmental domains as a cross-cutting issue. NUSP emphasizes that the improvements needed in the sanitation sector whether relating to augmenting infrastructure, service improvements and management solutions, or behavior change campaigns should be informed through the CSPs that outline and analyze the 13

15 current sanitation situation, need, local context, and availability of financial and human resources. The policy also suggests adopting differentiated approach towards extend quality sanitation services to the poor and underserved areas which focuses on involving and engaging them in the process of planning, financing and managing sanitation arrangements Service Level Benchmarks for Water and Sanitation, 2008 Benchmarking of municipal services is an important step towards introducing accountability in service delivery and involves measuring and monitoring key performance indicators on a systematic and continuous basis. In the current monitoring framework, projects and programs are evaluated primarily based on investments and infrastructure. Establishing a performance benchmarking framework allows one to measure the outcome or impact of those investments and infrastructure improvements. The MoUD introduced the Service Level Benchmarks (SLB) for water and sanitation in 2008 to shift the focus of urban development projects from infrastructure creation to improvement of service levels. The SLB initiative identifies a minimum set of standard performance parameters for the water and sanitation sector that are commonly understood and used by all stakeholders across the country, and defines a common minimum framework for monitoring and reporting on these indicators. 28 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) have been defined and benchmarked at values set by the MoUD. KPIs seek data on coverage of a service, its quantity and quality, extent of recovery of user charges, complaints redressal, and extent of availability of service. Eq. for water supply the set of KPIs contains: Table 1 Service level benchmarks for water supply in cities: by MoUD Key Performance Indicator (water supply) Benchmark a. Coverage of water supply connections 100% b. Per capita water supply 135 lpcd c. Extents of metering of water connections 100% d. Extent of non-revenue water 20% e. Continuity of water supply 24 hrs. f. Quality of water supplied 100% g. Efficiency in redressal of consumer complaints 80% h. Cost recovery in water supply services 100% i. Efficiency in collection of water supply related charges 90% Source: Handbook of Service Level Benchmarking by MoUD, GoI 14

16 The handbook on Service Level Benchmarks provides guidance on calculation of indicators and its analysis. Similar KPIs and benchmarks have been set for sewerage networks and services. Further, it has benchmarked reliability of collected data. There are four categories of reliability of data collected, viz. for coverage of water supply connections, data would be classified into one of the following four classes of reliability as per the table 2 given below Data for this indicator is required to be collected quarterly at zone/dma level. Table 2 Grades of reliability of data produced for KPIs Class of reliability D (Lowest level of reliability) C (Intermediate level) B (Intermediate level) A (Preferred level of reliability) Definition Estimation of households covered on the basis of geographical area of the city covered with the pipeline, as a surrogate indicator for water supply coverage. Estimation of households covered on the basis of road length in the city covered by the pipeline network, as a surrogate indicator for water supply coverage. Estimation of households covered computed as the total number of connections (for which data is maintained) as a percentage of the estimated number of households on the basis of population (total population divided by average household size). Calculation based on the actual number of households with direct service connections (for which data is maintained); and the total number of households as revealed in ground level surveys. Data is periodically updated on the basis of building units approved, and new household level water connections provided. The 13th Finance Commission has endorsed the SLB initiative and made compliance with service level benchmarks as a necessary pre-condition for urban local bodies (ULBs) to obtain performance 15

17 linked grants. The 14 th Finance Commission also requires cities to put their service level benchmarks in the public domain as one of the three criterions to avail performance grant. Currently several cities across at least 18 states in India regularly report their performance in the water and sanitation sector using the SLB framework (CEPT university, 2014). In Gujarat, cities have been collecting water & sanitation data and monitoring the SLB indicators on a regular basis for the last five years under the PAS program. Data from a report published by the Urban Management Center (Urban Management Centre, Ahmedabad, 2014) indicates improvement in trends of coverage of water supply in Gujarat. In urban areas it increased from around 73%, published by census 2001, to over 85%, reported by census Most of this increase is attributable to Municipal Corporations with 86% coverage. Class A cities have recorded least coverage with an average of 64%, while class B, C, and D report over 70% coverage of municipal water supply. Average of the quantity of water supplied, remained between 71 lpcd to 100 lpcd in the state. There are 9 ULBs which supplied water between 11lpcd to 40lpcd, and geographically they belong to coastal towns of Junagadh, Amreli and Bhavnagar districts, which are water stressed. However, recovery of user charges remains an issue for ULBs in Gujarat. Non-revenue water (NRW) is pegged at 24.2%, which is 9% more than the benchmark of 15%. Water supply is not metered in any ULB, except in Vadodara, Surat, Bhavnagar, and Bhuj where, a few non-domestic consumers have metered connections. In 2012, 81 cities had reported 5% illegal connections of which 23% were regularized. However the reliability of the data is D. Efficiency of complaint redressal had been recorded at 92.4% in Gujarat. All the cities except municipal corporations and class D cities improved efficient resolution of complaints. Here too, the reliability is low since the complaints are not formally recorded. SLB data over the years have shown that the recovery of charges has improved from 48% in to 61% in Class A municipalities recovered about 80% of its expenditure on water supply. 64.4% of all the charges billed were recovered. Municipal corporations had an efficiency of recovery at 68.8% of the billed charges. In the case of waste water collection, and treatment; there has been an improvement in coverage of toilets from 78% in , to 80% in and 82% in However, only 62 of the 167 ULBs have partial coverage of sewer lines. Except the municipal corporations, coverage of sewer lines in other cities ranges from 6% to 24%. And 56% of waste water generated in 22 cities is treated at STPs. On an average about 45% of properties in urban areas have on-site sanitation systems. But 16

18 only 126 of the 167 cities have septage management facilities. (Urban Management Centre, Ahmedabad, 2014) 1.5. Ratings of Cities, Along with developing a SLB framework to measure the performance of sanitation service delivery, the GoI instituted the rating exercise that created baseline information on sanitation for 423 cities (with population greater than 100,000) across India and rated their performance across various aspects of sanitation. This was measured through indicators that included physical infrastructure, systems, processes, and outcomes related to achievement of total sanitation. The first national rating was carried out in 2009 and results were published in May Advisory Note on Septage Management in Urban India, 2013 The results from Census of India 2011 reveal that close to 3 Crore urban households (38 percent) are dependent on on-site sanitation systems (OSS) such as septic tanks for waste water disposal. Despite such a high reliance on on-site sanitation, there were no separate guidelines or regulation for septage management for Indian cities. Recognizing, the importance and the need to improve septage management, and the gap in policy guidelines, the MoUD developed the septage management advisory to provide guidance to states and cities on policy, technical, regulatory and monitoring aspects. The advisory includes various aspects of septage management like regular cleaning and emptying of septic tanks, dewatering septage, sludge reuse, and regulatory and monitoring framework to be established by ULBs for efficient fecal sludge management. The advisory however provides management procedures for only one type of OSS that of a septic-tank connected to soak pit. Maintenance guidelines for other prevalent onsite disposal systems such as single pits; twin pits etc. are not included in the advisory. (flash cards -onsite sanitation, 2015) 1.7. Swachh Bharat Mission, 2014 The Prime minister has recently announced the restructuring of the Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA) into Swachh Bharat Mission with two sub-missions - Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) and Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban). The Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) was announced on 2 nd October 2014 with an aim of ensuring hygiene, waste management and sanitation across the nation. The SBM-Urban component will be implemented by the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) over a period of 5 years and will focus on providing sanitation and household toilet facilities in all 4041 statutory towns in the country. The guidelines for SBM (Urban) released by the MOUD in October, 2014 outline the key components and funding pattern of the mission. The SBM focuses on toilet provision (public, 17

19 community and individual) and public awareness. The mission encourages construction of individual toilets by providing a small incentive subsidy of INR 4000 per toilet (20% of the toilet cost) and recommend that the gap be met by beneficiary contribution, private funding under Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) or other private funding sources. The demand-driven approach adopted by the SBM for provision of toilets is an encouraging move towards eliminating open defecation and achieving clean and sanitized cities. 2. Sanitation in Urban Gujarat: Comparison with Other States This section compares the provision of water and sanitation services in urban Gujarat with other major states in India that have a geographical area similar to Gujarat and a significantly large urban population. Data from Census 2001 and 2011 has been used to compare trends across states Urbanization and Demographics Gujarat state was formed in the year 1960, with a division of regions, of Bombay state, on the basis of languages spoken. Despite of this division of regions, the statutory framework remained the same for establishment of institutions in Gujarat. The Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 was adopted as the framework for formation of ULBs in the state. All the obligatory and discretionary functions of ULBs have been laid down under this act. This act has been recently amended, only to replace Bombay with Gujarat and called The Gujarat Municipal Corporation Act Since its formation in 1960, Gujarat has been a leading industrial state in the country. The rapid pace of industrialization during the past five decades is one of the key factors contributing to urban growth in the State. The concentration of industrial development in the State has largely been around large urban centres like Ahmedabad, Surat, Vadodara, Bhavnagar, Rajkot and Jamnagar. According to the Census 2011results, the total population of the State is 6.03 Crore which accounts for 5% of the total population of India. Gujarat is the 10th largest state in the country based on population excluding (UTs). Gujarat is one of the most urbanized states in India with 43% of the State population living in urban areas (Census 2011). Only six states in the country (Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Kerala, Goa, Mizoram and Delhi) have a higher urbanization rate than Gujarat. Urban population in the state grew from 1.8 Crore in 2001 to 2.5 Crore in 2011 exhibiting a 36% increase, higher than the national average of 31.8%. 18

20 Table 3 Urbanization in Gujarat and peer states Urban Population Percentage of Urbanization Urbanization Rate A.P % 33.4% 35.6% Gujarat % 42.6% 36.0% Karnataka % 38.7% 31.5% Kerala % 47.7% 92.8% Maharashtra % 45.2% 23.6% Tamil Nadu % 48.4% 27.0% All-India % 31.2% 31.8% 92% of the State s population is concentrated in cities that have fully representative urban local bodies (ULB) and less than 8% urban population resides in Census Towns. There are 167 ULBs in Gujarat, out of which 8 are municipal corporations and remaining are classified as class A, B,C and D municipalities based on population size. Table 4 Distribution of urban population in Gujarat Category of ULB Number of ULBs Total population % Urban population Municipal corporation Class A(>100000) Class B(50000 to ) Class C(25000 to 50000) Class D(<25000) Total With rising urbanization, Gujarat has also seen a significant growth in income in the past few years. The state recorded a per capita net state domestic product of INR/USD 75,115 for the year , second after Maharashtra. The % growth rate in the per capita net state domestic product between 2010 and 2011 was 18%. Table 5 Per Capita Net State Domestic Product: Gujarat and peer states PER CAPITA NET STATE DOMESTIC PRODUCT AT CURRENT PRICES State Andhra Pradesh Gujarat N.A Karnataka Kerala Maharashtra N.A Tamil Nadu All-India Table 6 Per cent growth in per capita net state domestic product PER CAPITA NET STATE DOMESTIC PRODUCT AT CURRENT PRICES State Andhra Pradesh Gujarat N.A Karnataka Kerala

21 Maharashtra N.A Tamil Nadu All-India Slum Population Along with the rise in income, Gujarat has done well to reduce urban poverty over the past decades. From a high poverty level in at 53 per cent, share of urban poor in total urban population has come down to 13 per cent in The results from Census 2011 indicate 3.6 Lakh slum households in the State, however Government of Gujarat estimates close to 7 Lakh slum households in the state (Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, 2013).The percentage of urban population residing in slums in Gujarat has decreased in the last 10 years and is among the lowest in the peer states and the national average. Majority of the slum population is concentrated in municipal corporations and larger Class A and B municipalities. Table 7 Slum population in Gujarat and peer states Urban Population Slum population Percentage of slum population State A. P Gujarat Karnataka Kerala Maharashtra Tamil Nadu All-India Access to Drinking Water Availability of (safe) drinking water is quantified in terms of the source of water and proximity of the source. The drinking water ladder developed by the Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) puts drinking water directly collected from surface water (like river, ponds, lakes etc.) on the lowest rung, then come the unimproved and other improved sources including public taps. Access to piped drinking water (provided by public authorities) within the premise is at the top of the ladder and an important indicator of universal access to water. The following graph compares the results from Census 2011 with respect to access to water supply among peer states using the ladder as a framework. 20

22 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 - Unimproved surface water other improved Unimproved sources piped water on premises Figure 3 Access to drinking water in Gujarat and peer states As per Census 2011 data more than 75% urban households in the State have a tap connection within their premise as compared to 67.2% in There are 91 cities with more than 75% households with piped connection within premises. Coverage of piped water supply in municipal corporations and municipalities is at par with each other. Access to individual tap connection is comparable in Maharashtra (74.6%). Only 10% urban households are reliant on public stand posts for drinking water, comparatively urban households in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu are more reliant on piped water outside or away from their premises (24% and 35% respectively). Among the peer states Kerala has a high percentage of households (43%) dependent on unimproved drinking water sources like uncovered wells. Table 8Piped water supply within premises in urban households: Gujarat and peer states State Total Urban households Urban households with tap water within premises % of households with tap water within premises A.P % 59.9% Gujarat % 75.5% Karnataka % 60.5% Kerala % 27.1% Maharashtra % 74.6% Tamil Nadu % 45.1% All-India % 54.1% 21

23 Figure 4Urban households in Gujarat with access to piped water within premise by city With 75% households with piped water within premise, Gujarat fares best among its peer states in terms of city wide coverage. However access to water supply in slums is much lower in the state at 60%. Slum households in urban Maharashtra enjoy slightly better access to piped water supply within their premises. Table 9 Piped water supply within premises in slum households: Gujarat and peer states State Total Slum Households Slum households with piped water within premises A.P % Gujarat % Karnataka % Kerala % Maharashtra % Tamilnadu % All-India % 2.4. Access to Adequate Sanitation Slum households with piped water within premises (%) Access to adequate sanitation is quantified in terms of availability to toilets and their connection to waste water disposal systems. As per census % (63.6% in 2001) households in India do not have toilet with the percentage being as high as 69.3% (78.1% in 2001) in rural areas and 18.6% (26.3% in 2001) in urban areas. With 87.7% households with individual toilets, Gujarat fares well among its peer states in terms of access to toilets, second only to Kerala. The Census results also indicate that almost all of these individual toilets are connected to safe waste water disposal systems like underground sewerage network, septic tanks and improved pit and hence fall within the category of improved sanitation on the sanitation ladder formulated under the JMP. Only 1% of the 22

24 toilets in urban areas are unimproved (connected to an open pit, an open drain on are service latrines). Table 10 Urban households with individual toilets: Gujarat and peer states State Urban Households Urban HH with individual toilet within premises Percentage of HH having individual toilet Andhra Pradesh % 86.1% Gujarat % 87.7% Karnataka % 84.9% Kerala % 97.4% Maharashtra % 71.3% Tamil Nadu % 75.1% All-India % 81.4% Open Defecation Unimproved Sanitation Facilities Open pit latrines, service latrines, night soil disposed in drains Public Sanitation SANITATION UNIMPROVED 0 (Shared, community and public toilets) Improved Sanitation Open Defecation Public Sanitation Unimproved Sanitation Improved Sanitation Individual pour flush toilet connected to underground sewer, septic tank, pits and improved pits SANITATION IMPROVED Figure 5 Access to sanitation facilities: Gujarat and peer states 23

25 Mizoram Tripura Kerala Lakshadweep Sikkim Nagaland Manipur Meghalaya NCT of Delhi Chandigarh Daman & Diu Uttarakhand Assam Punjab Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Maharashtra A & N Islands Gujarat Haryana Goa Jammu & Kashmir Karnataka D & N Haveli West Bengal Andhra Pradesh Puducherry Uttar Pradesh Tamil Nadu Rajasthan Madhya Pradesh Bihar Jharkhand Odisha Chhattisgarh Percentage of households(%) Figure 6Urban households in Gujarat with individual toilets by city In Gujarat the reliance on public sanitation facilities is very low (4%) as compared to states like Maharashtra where more than 20% urban households are dependent on public sanitation facilities. Despite a significantly better access to individual toilets in Gujarat, the percentage of people defecating in the open (9%) is comparable to Maharashtra (8%) and other States, which is among the lower than the national average of 10.5% Open Defecation among Urban Households States Figure 7 Percentage of urban households defecating in the open by State 24

26 Percentage of households However, the percentage of slum households defecating in the open is very high in Gujarat (21%). Only 64% slum households in Gujarat have individual toilets, which is lower than the national average. Table 11 Slum households with individual toilets State Total Slum Households Slum Households with Individual toilets Slum Households with Individual toilets (%) A.P % Gujarat % Karnataka % Kerala % Maharashtra % Tamilnadu % All India % 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Open Defecation among Slum Households 3% 10% 15% States 21% 21% 25% Figure 8 Open defecation among slum households In Gujarat, close to 70% of the urban households that have individual toilets are connected to an underground sewerage system, another 28% are connected to septic tanks and 2% are connected to improved pits. The remaining are unimproved facilities such as open pit latrines or service latrines. Comparatively, more than 50% households in toilets in states like Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu are connected to on-site sanitation (OSS) systems like septic tanks and pits. Figure 9Urban households in Gujarat connected to waste water disposal systems by city 25

27 Percentage of traetment capacity Ensuring proper treatment and disposal of waste water and septage collected through the underground drainage or from OSS is the final stage in the value chain of safe sanitation. A comparison of sewage treatment capacities in Class I (population above 1 Lakh) and Class II cities(population between 50,000 and 1 Lakh) in Gujarat with peer states reveals that Class I cities in Gujarat are able to treat 46% of the sewage generated which is the highest among peer states (CPCB, 2010). Data on treatment capacity in class II cities is not available for Gujarat. A recent report by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) reports that among the peer states, maximum sewage treatment capacity exists in Tamil Nadu (16.9%), followed by Andhra Pradesh (15%). Gujarat is able to treat only 4.9% of the total sewage generated in the State (CPCB, 2013). (Urban Management Centre, 2013) Table 12 Sewage generation and treatment in class I and II cities State Number of Class I cities Sewage Generation in Class I cities(mld) Sewage Treatment in Class 1 cities(mld) Number of Class II cities Sewage Generation in Class II cities(mld) Sewage Treatment in Class II cities(mld) A.P Gujarat Karnataka Kerala Maharashtra Tamilnadu All India % 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Class I cities Class II cities A.P Gujarat Karnataka Kerala Maharashtra Tamilnadu All India Figure 10 Comparison of sewage treatment capacities in class I and II cities by state 2.5. Summary Gujarat fares highest among its peer states in terms of access to individual piped water connections, and second only to Kerala in terms of access to individual toilets. However compared to 87% urban households with individual toilets, only 64% slum households in Gujarat have access to individual toilets. Within Gujarat, access to adequate sanitation is lagging behind the most in coastal cities in the Saurashtra region. 26

28 With 70% urban households with toilets connected to an underground drainage network, Gujarat is moving towards a centralized sewage system across the State for wastewater collection, states like Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu are largely reliant on OSS. Overall rate of open defecation in the state is pegged at 9% (lower than the national average of over 10%) but greater than Maharashtra (8%), where reliance on public facilities for sanitation is greater. Coverage of slums in sanitation facilities is poor in the state. Rate of open defecation in slums is 21%, in the state. In proportion to quantity of waste water generated, Gujarat treats close to 50% of the waste water generated in Class I cities. However, it lags behind peer states in treatment capacity of waste water in Class II cities, where there are no facilities for treatment. 3. Institutional Arrangements for Urban Sanitation in Gujarat The NUSP recognizes that sanitation is a state subject with respect to providing policy direction and funds for large capital investments; ULBs are responsible for ensuring efficient delivery and management of water supply, sanitation and solid waste services because they are the closest to the communities and have a mandate to ensure that their cities are healthy and sustainable. ULBs have been granted a constitutional status in India under the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act (74 CAA) enacted in The twelfth schedule of the 74th constitutional amendment delineates eighteen essential functions including Public health, sanitation, conservancy and solid waste management as obligatory functions of urban local bodies; however the state municipal laws determine the extent of decentralization and the obligatory and discretionary responsibilities of ULBs. In Gujarat Municipal corporations are constituted and function under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (Earlier the Bombay Municipal Corporations Act, 1949), and the municipalities function under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, which was enacted after the formation of a separate state of Gujarat in As per the acts, ULBs in Gujarat are responsible for the provision of water and sanitation services. The BPMC act, 1949, allows for provision of basic amenities such as water supply, sewerage and storm water drainage, education, public health, etc. For this purpose it allows for all the auxiliary activities such as construction of pipelines, access to property, and also the power to levy charges/taxes. It also allows the municipal bodies to raise funds from various sources such as revenues, grants, donations, loans, bonds, etc. to undertake such extensive infrastructure projects. Besides, public private partnerships have been encouraged to allow ULBs to focus on effective delivery of services. However, in case of water supply the act lends the state government considerable power over water resources. Property rights of these natural 27

29 resources lie with state governments and hence, their development remains under the purview of states. Unlike drainage, water supply rests with state government until the point of sale. Water flowing in the supply mains of cities is a property of the city and the act empowers the commissioner of the ULB as to its sale. Drainage is also under the domain of ULBs. Collection, conveyance and treatment are the responsibility of ULBs. State government and the parastatal Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board construct drainage systems and treatment plants. The effluent which is released into the environment has to comply with the CPCB norms. The GPCB is responsible for its frequent checking. While the routine operations and maintenance of sanitation services falls most certainly in the domain of all ULBs in the State, the ability and authority to undertake new infrastructure projects varies based on the size and capacity of ULBs. Most municipal corporations in the State execute infrastructure projects on their own with financial assistance from the State Government, but the implementation of new infrastructure projects in municipalities is being directly undertaken by State level parastatal agencies under the aegis of the Urban Development and Housing Department with limited consultation and coordination with the ULBs Urban Local Bodies There are 167 cities in Gujarat with fully representation urban local bodies. 8 of these are municipal corporations and the rest are A, B, C and D class municipalities. Other than in the 4 large municipal corporations (Ahmedabad, Surat, Rajkot and Vadodara), ULBs in Gujarat lack administrative and financial autonomy. Most ULBs do not employ their own staff. The Chief Officers (administrative heads) as well as technical staff such as engineers and planners are all State employees and come from cadre of trained professionals selected through the Gujarat Public Services Commission (GPSC). These positions are frequently rotated between different ULBs. Also more than 75% of the ULB s budget comes from state and central grants under various programs. Close to 45% of these are tied grants for specific improvements (construction of toilets, crematoriums etc.,) under various programs and only 30% are grants which the ULBs can utilize based on their own discretion (Urban Management Centre, 2013). New infrastructure projects such as laying of roads, water and sewage lines, affordable housing are directly undertaken by State authorities. In this scenario, the role of ULBs in ensuring safe urban sanitation is largely focused on service delivery, routine operations and maintenance of infrastructure, and implementing state level programs. Decentralization of water supply and sanitation services to the urban local bodies, particularly the smaller authorities remains a challenge in Gujarat. To address these capacity challenges 28

30 within ULBs Currently urban infrastructure and services' delivery in sanitation is characterized by multiplicity of state level agencies with different in capabilities and mandates State Level Institutions and Parastatal Agencies The Urban Development & Housing Department, Govt. of Gujarat is the primary authority responsible for development of urban infrastructure within the state. The key roles and responsibilities of UD&HD in the urban sanitation sector are to formulate policies and guidelines, establish standards and benchmarks, and finance water and sanitation improvements in the State. Between 2005 and 1011, the UD&HD contributed to 57 per cent of all investments in the urban water and sanitation sector, central government funds contributed 27 per cent, and the remaining 16 per cent came from ULBs, largely as their mandatory share under central programs (PAS Program, CEPT University, 2011).The funds are disbursed to the ULBs through the Gujarat Municipal Finance Board (GMFB).In the last five years, the UD&HD has also begun to directly undertake construction and implementation of infrastructure projects in ULBs through its departments and parastatal agencies which include the Gujarat Urban Development Mission (GUDM), Gujarat Urban development Corporation (GUDC) and the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (GWSSB). Once the infrastructure is in place, it is handed over to the ULBs for routine operation and maintenance. The Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) is responsible for monitoring air, water or land pollution arising due to unsafe sanitation practices and suggesting preventive and remedial measures to curb the same. This section presents a brief overview of these agencies and their current roles in urban sanitation. Urban Development and Housing Department Gujarat Gujarat Urban Gujarat Urban Municipal Development Development Finance Gujarat Board Municipal Corporation Finance Board Mission Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Gujarat Pollution Control Board The Gujarat Municipal Finance Board was established under the Gujarat Municipal Finance Board Figure 11 State Departments & Parastatal Agencies in Urban Sanitation Act, 1979 with the purpose of allocating grants and loans for provision of basic infrastructure facilities in ULBs in the State. The Board is also responsible for assisting ULBs and urban development authorities in identification, preparation, structuring and execution of infrastructure projects in sectors such as roads, storm water drains, water supply and sanitation, solid waste management, street lighting, and slum upgradation. GMFB also provides support to ULBs for computerized 29

31 property tax system, and computerized financial management through double entry accounting systems. GMFB also provides training to state level agencies in financial management and reforms. Currently the GMFB is financing sanitation improvements in cities of Gujarat through two key programs: the Nirmal Gujarat Shauchalay Yojana for constructing individual and pay & use toilets and the Swarnim Jayanti Mukhya Mantri Shehri Vikas Yojana for construction of underground drainage and sewage treatment plants Gujarat Urban Development Mission The Gujarat Urban Development Mission (GUDM) was constituted to ensure rightful spending of GOI's funds under JNNURM and was designated as the nodal agency to implement the program in the State. GUDM supports urban renewal and urban infrastructure development in Gujarat through various state led programs. The key responsibility of GUDM is to support and build capacities within ULBs to plan, build, operate, manage and maintain urban infrastructure and facilitate access to funds from Government of Gujarat, Government of India and other financial institutions. However, GUDM also undertakes infrastructure projects (water and sanitation) directly in cities in Gujarat through consultants and contractors, many times without the involvement and collaboration of ULBs. For example the GUDM had directly appointed consultants to prepare detailed project reports (DPRs) and construct housing under the IHSDP program without involving ULBs in the selection process. Without an oversight and strong monitoring framework, several of these consultants defaulted on their work and left the projects unfinished or mid-way 2. GUDM has employed the same model for infrastructure development in the sanitation sector. Recently it has floated DPRs for constructing underground drainage and STPs in all 157 cities in the State Gujarat Urban Development Company GUDC s mission is to facilitate urban development in Gujarat by assisting state government in formulation of policy, building institutional capacities building and to also assist in funding and implementation of projects. Currently GUDC is supporting the State Government in formulating the zero waste policy for Gujarat and also undertaking several solid and liquid waste management projects across ULBs in Gujarat. GUDC has also been designated as a nodal agency for implementing sewerage scheme and STPs in 58 ULBs n Gujarat. 2 Interviews with Chief Officers, ULBs in Gujarat 30

32 Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board GWSSB is a statutory body set up by the Gujarat State Government for development, regulation and control of the drinking water and sanitation sector. The main function of the Board is to prepare, executive, promote and finance the schemes and plans for water supply and for sewerage and sewage disposal largely in rural areas. The GWSSB has provided piped water supply and sewerage systems across several including large water supply system covering cluster of villages. GWSSB is also responsible for establishing State standards for water supply and sewerage services. Earlier the jurisdiction of GWSSB was limited to gram panchayats and municipalities. The Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Amendment) Bill, 2014 was passed recently allowing the Board to undertake water supply and sewerage schemes in municipal corporations as well (TNN, 2014). GWSSB has been appointed the implementing agency for construction of underground sewerage and STPs in 100 cities in Gujarat Gujarat Pollution Control Board Gujarat Pollution Control Board was constituted by Government of Gujarat in 1974 in accordance with the provision of the Water Act, It is the chief regulatory agency for implementation of environmental protection and pollution control in the state and plays an important role in securing sustainable development by enforcing various laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to prevention and control of pollution. GWSSB is responsible for monitoring water pollution arising out of disposal of untreated septage into water bodies and suggesting preventive and remedial measures to curb the same. 31

33 The following table presents the roles and responsibilities of ULBs and State level departments and parastatal agencies for various stages of program implementation across the entire value chain of sanitation as per the current framework of Government of Gujarat. Table 13 the sanitation value chain: Roles of ULB and State Government Name and description of Program Policy & program formulation Flow of Funding for Capital Investments Implementation Construction & Monitoring Service Delivery and Service Improvements Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Funding for O&M 1. Toilet construction and use 2. Waste water collection/storage system (For on-site sanitation systems (OSS)) 3. Conveyanc e/ Transport OSS Nirmal Gujarat Shauchalay Yojana: 100% subsidy for construction of toilets (without substructure) Currently no policy or guidelines by State Government or ULBs for OSS UD&HD, GoG UD&HD, GoG GMFB ULB GUDC (Provides septage sucking machines and equipment to ULBs) ULB ULB (monitors location and design of OSS during the building approval process) - ULB ULB (Only for community & public toilets) ULB ULB (Provides septic tank and pit cleaning and emptying services) ULB (regular upkeep &maintenance of emptier machines) ULB (own tax base and user charges) For underground sewerage 4. Treatment 5. Disposal and reuse SJMMSVY: Construction of underground sewerage and STPs in 159 ULBs in Gujarat UD&HD, GoG UD&HD, GoG GUDM GWSSB, GUDC GWSSB, GUDM ULB ULB ULB (GOG initially for first three years, then ULB using own tax base and user charges, sale of treated septage)

34 4. Urban Sanitation: Policy and Programs by Government of Gujarat Urban sanitation has emerged as a focus area in Gujarat in the last decade was declared and celebrated as the Urban Year by Government of Gujarat bringing in focus on urban improvements. The Government of India s JNNURM program was also launched during this time bringing attention and central funding to 4 large cities in the State. The State Government strengthened its institutional capacity to implement the program by forming the Gujarat Urban Development Mission. In 2007, the State Government launched the Nirmal Gujarat Campaign with an effort to provide a boost to programs in the urban water and sanitation sector. As part of the campaign, the state government provided a 100% subsidy for construction of individual and public toilets in ULBs. Later in 2009, the Government launched the SJMMSVY with a focus on improving infrastructure in ULBs. Multiple state level agencies (GUDM, GUDC and GWSSB) were made responsible for implementing various aspects of these programs and schemes. More recently, the Government of Gujarat has launched the Mahatma Gandhi Swachhata Mission, consolidating all different State programs in water, sanitation and waste management under one authority. The MGSM will provide policy and operational guidance to ULBs in the state to achieve the vision of OD-free cities. MGSM will also integrate behaviour change communication for promoting toilet use and awareness campaigns around water, sanitation and health with the existing schemes and programs for infrastructure creation. The Secretary, Urban development is the Mission Director of MGSM. MGSM will also be responsible for implementing the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) in Gujarat Policy and Financing Approach With increased priority for urban development in the state, the State Government is spending a significant amount of its budget on augmenting urban infrastructure including water supply and sanitation. Between 2005 and 2011, the UD&HD received 5.7 per cent share of the state budget. Out of these funds, it is estimated that 56 per cent of funds were used for financing urban water and sanitation (PAS Program, CEPT University, 2011). However, the Government of Gujarat has not yet formulated a state urban sanitation policy to guide investments in the urban water and sanitation sector. Devolution of funds to ULBs takes place under specific schemes and programs or through partially tied grants which the ULBs can utilize to fund improvements in basic services. Untied grants constitute less than 10% of the total funds devolved to ULBs. Once a program is announced by the State Government, the specific department releases a General Resolution (GR) with the specifics and operational modalities of the program as a notification and guidance document for ULBs. The current state led programs for urban sanitation (Nirmal Gujarat Shauchalay Yojana and SJMMSVY) are target driven, focused solely on infrastructure creation and are fully financed by the State Government with no cost sharing by the ULB, beneficiary or the private sector.

35 4.2. Overall Approach and Programs for Increasing Toilet Coverage Gujarat Government has adopted a centralized subsidy driven approach for provision of toilets. The first state supported program for individual toilet provision was launched in The program called the low cost sanitation program provided a subsidy of Rs to each beneficiary household. In 2007, the scheme was integrated with the Nirmal Gujarat Campaign and was called the Nirmal Gujarat Vyaktigat Shauchalay Yojana. The subsidy amount was increased to Rs in 2012 and to Rs.8000 in The operational aspects of the program have more or less remained the same. Figure 12 Evolution of programs for toilet provision in Gujarat Evolution of the Nirmal Gujarat Vyaktigat Shauchalay Yojana The Government of Gujarat launched the Nirmal Gujarat Campaign in 2007 with a focus on urban environment, and more importantly sanitation and cleanliness. As part of the campaign, the State Government emphasized the construction of individual toilets in BPL and SC/ST households residing in ULBs by providing a direct subsidy of Rs.4500 per household to the ULB. The GMFB was designated as the nodal agency to finance, implement and monitor the success of the program in the State. GMFB developed a standard set of specifications along with the costing for the toilets. The specifications for OSS system where drainage line was not available included low cost single pit 3 and 3 Single pit system is now considered an inappropriate OSS technology for urban areas. The guidelines for the Swachh Bharat Mission released by MoUD in October 2014 only provide specifications for a septic tank or a twin pit system. 34